Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S EVEREST BUILDING PRODUCTS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Everest Building Products Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 431 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 805 (16 September 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.431 OF 1996

M/s Everest Building Products Ltd., Allahabad. ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Opp.Party

...............

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal relating to the assessment year 1986-87.

Applicant was carrying on the business of cement sheets. Applicant had imported certain cement sheets from outside the State of U.P. It appears that Form-31 was not produced at the check post. However, after arrival of the goods, Form-34 was produced before the assessing authority for endorsement. Assessing authority levied the penalty on the ground that the driver had adopted the route in which there was no check post and on the ground that the good was received on 31.03.1987 while Form-31 was submitted after 20 days from the receipt of goods for endorsement, levied a sum of Rs.9,900/- towards penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Against the order of the first appellate authority applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal rejected the appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In my opinion, order of the Tribunal can not be sustained. In the present case, admittedly, Trade Tax authorities had not checked the goods during the transit and goods was not seized. Applicant voluntarily submitted Form-31 relating to the goods and made a declaration. Therefore, it can not be said to be a case of attempt to evade the tax. In the absence of any case of an attempt to evade the penalty levied under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act can not be sustained.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal is set aside and the penalty is quashed.

Dt.16.09.2004

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.